Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter identifies the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for 

the Study. Route alternatives are the alternatives for the overall Project route and identify the 

termini and alignment for the service. The screening criteria and multi-step process used to 

evaluate these route alternatives, and the results of the alternatives analysis are also 

described. Subsequent to the route screening process, options for service (speeds, 

frequencies, and station stops) were identified, reviewed, and screened, and design options 

for route connectivity through the Des Moines, Iowa, area and the Council Bluffs, Iowa, and 

Omaha, Nebraska, area were considered. Although preliminary design would address 

specific infrastructure needs during the Tier 2 NEPA process, which may include the 

evaluation of design options, connectivity options must be initially addressed during 

preparation of the Tier 1 NEPA process. The No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative

(including its phased implementation) are described in this chapter. Finally, a summary of 

potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative is provided.

2.1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

The identification of route alternatives and the screening process were documented in an

Alternatives Analysis Report (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012). This report was made available 

for review as discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.1. Section 2.1 provides a summary of the 

Alternatives Analysis Report, which was revised in response to comments and is included in 

Appendix A.

2.1.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives

The Study evaluated potential route alternatives for the Corridor based on reviews of 

previous studies and also the ideas or concepts that were suggested by resource agencies or 

the public during the scoping process. 

The range of route alternatives includes the No-Build Alternative and existing or former 

freight-only or freight-passenger routes that may have been previously identified by the 

MWRRI and other studies. Entirely new construction on new right-of-way (ROW) (that is, 

a greenfield route) was considered but determined to be unreasonable because of the cost of 

new ROW and the challenge of timely acquisition of property. Additionally, grading entirely 

new ROW, rather than expanding as needed along existing ROW, would cause more impact 

on the natural and human environments1 than on-alignment route alternatives. 

 

1 The natural environment includes living and non-living things that are naturally on earth, whereas the 

human environment is the remaining portion of the environment that has been modified by man.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The No-Build Alternative, the five previously established passenger rail routes in the 

Corridor (Route Alternatives 1 through 5), and the combination of Route 4 and Route 5 

(Route Alternative 4-A) compose the initial range of route alternatives proposed for 

consideration for the Study. These route alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1. The No-Build 

Alternative is included to provide a basis of comparison to the other route alternatives 

(40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545).

2.1.2 Screening Methodology

The methodology for screening route alternatives consisted of developing screening criteria 

and performing the screening process. The screening process included two steps: an initial 

coarse-level screening to identify whether any route alternative is hindered by major 

challenges (and would thus be eliminated from further evaluation) and a subsequent finelevel screening to evaluate each route alternative in greater quantitative and qualitative detail. 

This two-step screening process was intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS to focus on only those 

route alternatives that would meet the purpose and need for the service and that are 

reasonable and feasible. 

2.1.3 Screening Criteria

The screening process for evaluating and eventually selecting reasonable and feasible route 

alternatives to carry forward for detailed consideration in the Tier 1 EIS relied on four broad 

screening criteria that were used for coarse- and fine-level screening. These four criteria are 

noted below, with Table 2-1 identifying and describing subcriteria for coarse-level screening, 

and Table 2-2 identifying and describing subcriteria for fine-level screening:

• Meeting the purpose and need for passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha (this is a critical criterion under NEPA because those alternatives that 

don’t meet the underlying purpose and need for a project are eliminated from 

further consideration)

• Technical feasibility (this criterion addresses physical and operational 

considerations for a project)

• Economic feasibility (this criterion applies to economic considerations of 

anticipated revenue and costs)

• Environmental concerns (this criterion considers whether there would be 

substantial concerns with respect to impacts on the natural and human 

environment)

These screening criteria were used to compare the merits and drawbacks of each route 

alternative during both levels of the two-step screening process. Appendix A includes 

additional description of the criteria and the screening process for identification and review 

of route alternatives.
§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦90

I o w a I o w a

I l l i n o i s I l l i n o i s

K a n s a s K a n s a s

M i n n e s o t a M i n n e s o t a

M i s s o u r i M i s s o u r i

W i s c o n s i n W i s c o n s i n

Nebraska Nebraska

Route Alternative 3 Route Alternative 5/4-A

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 4/4-A

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 1

Council Council

Bluffs Bluffs

Osceola Osceola

Slater Slater

Ames Ames

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Dubuque

Marion Marion

Waterloo Waterloo

Burlington Burlington

Galesburg Galesburg

Iowa City Iowa City

Galesburg Galesburg

Moline Moline

Osceola Osceola

Savanna Savanna

Rockford Rockford

Chicago Chicago

Elgin Elgin

Joliet Joliet

Naperville Naperville

Omaha Omaha

DeKalb DeKalb

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Route Alternatives

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Tier 1 Service Level EIS

October 2012

2-1

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Route Hybrid
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

2.1.4 Screening Process

A two-step screening process—coarse-level screening and fine-level screening—was used to 

evaluate proposed route alternatives using the four screening criteria. The purpose of the 

two-step screening process was to eliminate route alternatives burdened by major challenges. 

The coarse-level screening was applied to the initial range of route alternatives, unreasonable 

alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, fine-level screening was applied to 

the remaining alternatives, and the one or more alternatives that passed through the fine-level 

screening process were carried forward for detailed evaluation under the Tier 1 NEPA

process.

2.1.4.1 Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Coarse-level screening is a high-level screening to determine which route alternatives meet 

the purpose and need, are technically and economically feasible, and are environmentally 

reasonable. Route alternatives that met all of these criteria were carried forward to fine-level 

screening. Route alternatives that did not meet all of these criteria were eliminated from 

further consideration. The route alternatives that did meet purpose and need were evaluated 

based on technical, economic, and environmental criteria. These criteria and their factors for 

evaluation are presented in Table 2-1; the Purpose and Need criterion and the Environmental 

Concerns criterion each have subcriteria defined for evaluation (see Appendix A for more 

comprehensive information on the screening process). Information gained during the scoping 

process was used to help compare and screen route alternatives.

A 500-foot wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in the coarselevel screening. This buffer provided a conservative limit for screening the route alternatives. 

Table 2-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Other than the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, what is the 

population served by the route alternative? 

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Would the route alternative provide a time-competitive route compared to other route 

alternatives?

Technical 

Feasibility

Would the route alternative involve substantially more technical hurdles than other 

route alternatives? Factors considered include:

• Major construction efforts, such as major earthwork and major new bridges

• Potential for freight train traffic conflicts and scope of engineering solutions 

for such conflicts

Economic

Feasibility

Would the route alternative have costs far in excess of its anticipated benefits? Would 

the route alternative be substantially more expensive than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Major 

Challenges

Based on qualitative analysis, does the route alternative have major environmental 

(natural and human environment) challenges compared to other considered route 

alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Sensitive 

Areas

Based on qualitative analysis, would the route alternative traverse substantially more 

environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

cultural resources, and park and recreation lands) than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

Would the route alternative require substantially more ROW acquisition than other 

route alternatives? 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-5 October 2012

2.1.4.2 Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would

be carried forward for detailed evaluation in this Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, 

route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were screened for their 

ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operating, and 

maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment.

In order to estimate potential impacts, a preliminary impact area was identified for each route 

alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide throughout each route 

alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide was then applied where necessary to 

accommodate additional track needs, to promote efficient track maintenance, and to mitigate 

any operating disruptions generated by passenger trains. Therefore, the buffer area applied is 

specific to each route alternative. The preliminary impact area analyzed for each route 

alternative in the fine-level screening included the estimated 100-foot-wide ROW and the 

25- to 50-foot-wide buffer area for additional track.

The criteria and their factors evaluated during fine-level screening are listed in Table 2-2. 

Purpose and Need, Technical Feasibility, and Environmental Concerns each have subcriteria

defined for evaluation. The environmental criteria were selected from those resources that 

were readily quantifiable, and often include constraints on project development. Some of the 

resources selected for screening would also require permits or approvals. Consequently, 

although not every environmental resource included in this NEPA document was considered 

for initial screening of alternatives, the resources selected for screening were known to be 

key constraints. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 2-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Does a preliminary travel demand analysis indicate that the route alternative would 

attract a substantially greater or lesser number of riders compared to other route 

alternatives? Would the route alternative attract sufficient ridership to be an 

economically feasible alternative?

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Based on information from coarse-level screening, determine if running times can be 

further refined for each route alternative. Would the route alternative provide a timecompetitive route compared to other route alternatives?

Technical Feasibility: 

Passenger and Freight 

Capacity

Determine general infrastructure improvements that would be required to deliver 

desired passenger train speeds and schedules. Determine general infrastructure 

improvements required to maintain existing and future freight train services while 

enabling prioritized passenger-train operation.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: 

Alignment

Would the route alternative involve a more challenging alignment or grading 

problems, including flyovers, in order to meet speed and capacity requirements? 

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Structures

Establish conceptual costs for structures for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings

Determine the number of new and expanded grade crossings and grade separations 

for each route alternative for purposes of comparison.

Economic Feasibility: Determine high-level project cost for route alternative comparison utilizing 

subcomponents that address alignment, structures, grade crossings, etc. Determine 

operating and maintenance costs for each route alternative as a basis for comparison.

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

Upon initial evaluation of the route alternative and quantification of conceptual 

environmental effects, would the route alternative have the potential to impact 

substantially more environmentally sensitive areas in the following categories 

compared with other route alternatives?

• Streams

• Floodplains

• Wetlands

• Farmland

• Threatened and endangered species

• Cultural resources

• Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

• Environmental justice

• Noise and vibration

• Hazardous materials

Environmental 

Concerns: Right-ofWay

Determine conceptual ROW acquisition for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison (refined from coarse-level screening). Would the route alternative 

require acquisition and demolition/disruption of substantially more structures, 

developments, agricultural resources, or features of the existing built environment 

(including homes, businesses, farms, and historic properties listed on the NRHP)

than other route alternatives?
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-7 October 2012

2.1.4.3 Results of Route Alternative Screening Process

The coarse- and fine-level screening of route alternatives is documented in detail in the Final 

Alternatives Analysis Report (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012), included in Appendix A. The 

coarse-level screening process eliminated Route Alternative 3 from further consideration 

because it would have the highest cost; require a substantial permitting effort; result in 

unacceptably high impacts on landowners because of the ROW needs; and cause extensive 

impacts on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. The finelevel screening process eliminated Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 from further 

consideration. Therefore, Route Alternative 4-A is the only route alternative carried forward 

for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Below is a summary from the Alternatives Analysis 

Report providing the rationale for eliminating or carrying forward the aforementioned route 

alternatives.

Route Alternative 1

Route Alternative 1 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract the necessary ridership from Iowa communities and the Omaha/Council Bluffs 

metropolitan area to generate adequate revenue. In addition, because this route alternative is 

longest and slowest of the route alternatives, it would not offer a competitive travel time, and

because of its length, Route Alternative 1 would have excessive operations and maintenance 

costs. Route Alternative 1 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria because it would 

require a major new structure over the Mississippi River and its costs were excessive

compared to the base case of preliminary cost estimates for improvement of Route 

Alternative 4, which had the least expensive costs. Route Alternative 1 was determined to be 

neither reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 2

Despite the fact that it has the shortest travel time, Route Alternative 2 did not meet the 

purpose and need for the Project because it would not attract adequate ridership or generate 

the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route Alternative 2 also did not meet the 

technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive new ROW and a major new structure 

over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 2 did not meet the economic criterion because 

of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 2 would cost approximately 

$1 billion more than the base case, without providing any additional service or ridership 

benefits. Route Alternative 2 was determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 3

Of the six route alternatives, the greatest challenges are presented by Route Alternative 3. 

Not only would Route Alternative 3 have the highest cost, but also the permitting effort 

would be substantial. Establishing approximately 225 miles of new railroad ROW would 

create unacceptably high impacts on landowners, and the resulting permitting process would 

be extremely long. An extended permitting process could void the early baseline data prior to 

the permit being issued, thus requiring a second round of baseline data gathering and 

potentially requiring a re-evaluation of the findings of the Tier 1 EIS. Constructing 

essentially greenfield railroad for Route Alternative 3 would have significant impacts on 

communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. Former bridges across 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

major rivers would need to be reconstructed at high costs and environmental impacts. In 

addition to the high cost of ROW acquisition and bridge reconstruction, track and 

infrastructure would also need to be reestablished at an appreciable cost. As a result of the 

extremely high environmental and economic hurdles to re-establishing this abandoned rail 

corridor and anticipated local opposition and controversy, Route Alternative 3 was deemed 

unreasonable and was eliminated from further study.

Route Alternative 4

Route Alternative 4 does not meet the purpose and need for the project because the Chicago 

termini of Route Alternative 4 is at LaSalle Street Station instead of Chicago Union Station

and provides substantially less modal interconnectivity at Chicago. It would not provide for 

the connection to the MWRRI high-speed network, which is connected through the Chicago 

hub at Chicago Union Station. This connection would be costly, have impacts on urban areas 

that the connection would be constructed through, and is not practical. 

Route Alternative 4 was the least costly (not accounting for a connection from La Salle Street 

Station to Chicago Union Station) and was considered to represent the base case for 

comparison of preliminary costs of the other route alternatives, and it would attract adequate 

ridership and would generate adequate revenue. However, based on the lack of a connection 

from La Salle Street Station to Union Station, and the associated cost and impacts of 

constructing a connection, Route Alternative 4 was determined to be neither reasonable nor 

feasible.

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route 

Alternative 5 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive 

new ROW and a major new structure over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 5 did not 

meet the economic criterion because of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route 

Alternative 5 would cost approximately $1.2 billion more than the base case, without 

providing any additional service or ridership benefits. Route Alternative 5 was determined to 

be neither reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 4-A

Route Alternative 4-A was identified as the only reasonable route alternative for the Project 

to carry forward for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Table 2-3 (derived from Table 7-1 

from the Final Alternatives Analysis Report, which is included in Appendix A and provides 

detailed information on the screening process) illustrates the comparison of the criteria from 

fine-level screening supporting the screening process. Route Alternative 4-A was carried 

forward for detailed evaluation because, when compared to the other route alternatives 

considered, it:

• Meets project purpose and need (purpose and need)

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs

(technical and economic feasibility)
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-9 October 2012

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical 

feasibility)

• Does not appear to require a new bridge over the Mississippi River (technical and 

economic feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need)

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need)

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-11 October 2012

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Comparison

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

774,000 total 

population served

523,940 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served

167,000 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served No additional service

Ridership

Forecast

505,000 to 

715,000

375,000 to 

550,000

640,000 to 

885,000

255,000 to 

370,000

680,000 to 

935,000 None

Revenue Forecast $15.2 to $22.2 

million

$14.7 to $22.0 

million

$22.9 to $32.2 

million

$11.2 to $16.6

million

$24.2 to $33.9

million None

Preliminary 

Running Time

• Base 79 + 

43 minutes

• Base 90 + 

43 minutes

• Base 110 + 

40 minutes

• Base 79

• Base 90

• Base 110

• Base 79 + 

17 minutes

• Base 90 + 

22 minutes

• Base 110 + 

25 minutes

• Base 79 + 

18 minutes

• Base 90 + 

16 minutes

• Base 110 + 

13 minutes

• Base 79 + 

4 minutes

• Base 90 + 

8 minutes

• Base 110 + 

14 minutes

Not Applicable

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

• 516 miles long

• Excessive travel 

time 

• 479 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 490 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time

• Lack of connection 

to Chicago Union 

Station

• 496 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 474 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

No new travel mode

Technical 

Feasibility:

Passenger and 

Freight Capacity 

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• Freight congestion

Dubuque terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second and 

third main track

No change to existing 

capacity
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative

Technical/ 

Economic

Feasibility:

Alignment 

• Heavy curvature on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River

valley

• Moderate curvature 

in Iowa

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River

valley 

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

along Illinois River

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• No change to 

existing alignments

Technical/

Economic

Feasibility:

Structures 

• New or improved 

East Dubuque 

Tunnel

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• New Mississippi 

and Des Moines 

(Kate Shelly) 

bridges

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• No changes to 

structures

Technical/

Economic

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings 

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

No changes to grade 

crossings

Economic

Feasibility: 

Base + 

$550 million

Base + 

$1,005 million Base Base + $1,230.6 million

Base + 

$147.2 million Not applicable

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified 

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

2,200 acres needed 

(600 urban/1,600 

rural)

3,200 acres needed 

(950 urban/2,250 

rural)

2,100 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,300 

rural)

3,000 acres needed 

(850 urban/2,150 

rural)

2,200 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,400 

rural)

None

Meets Purpose and 

Need No No No No Yes No

Carried forward No No No No Yes Yesa

Note: a While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it is carried forward to provide a basis of comparison to any route alternative (40 CFR 

1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-13 October 2012

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative carried forward for analysis in this Tier 1 

EIS are described below.

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would consist of the current trackage and operations with the 

present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or 

operations. The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of 

intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but independently planned 

construction of passenger rail service from Chicago to Moline would still occur. This project 

is referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program and includes operation of 

two round-trips per day at speeds of up to 79 mph, a connection to join BNSF and IAIS track 

near Wyanet, Illinois, as well as improvements at Eola Yard in Eola, Illinois. Construction 

for the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program is anticipated to commence in 2013 and 

the service to be operational by 2015. 

Other transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System could occur independently, with or without the 

Project, and include the projects listed below (Section 3.26.2 provides more information on 

these projects, and Section 1.5 discusses some of the projects).

MWRRI Projects:

• Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac, Michigan

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Duluth, 

Minnesota

Metra Projects:

• STAR Line SES 

• UP-NW Line 

• UP-W Line 

• BNSF Line Aurora to Oswego Extension 

Additional projects to facilitate passenger rail systems in Illinois and Iowa include:

• Illinois: Midwest Train Equipment Fleet 

• Illinois: Chicago Terminal Limits for the Midwest Regional Rail System 

• Illinois: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor 

• Illinois: Amtrak Illinois Zephyr Galesburg Congestion Relief Project

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance 

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Crossover Improvements 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Major roadway projects:

• Illinois: Move Illinois

• Illinois: Congestion-Relief Program

• Illinois: Illiana Expressway

• Illinois: Elgin O’Hare West Bypass

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance 

• Iowa and Nebraska: CBIS Improvements Project

Other intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago

to Omaha Corridor, including Amtrak’s California Zephyr and Southwest Chief, and Illinois’

state-supported, Amtrak-operated Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg services, are assumed to 

continue to operate under the No-Build Alternative. The California Zephyr and Southwest 

Chief are categorized as long-distance trains, with schedules and accommodations oriented 

for passengers traveling long distances, such as between Chicago and California. 

Accordingly, these trains have schedules designed primarily to serve their target longdistance markets, and include both sleeper and full-service diner accommodations for 

passengers. As such, while they operate within or adjacent to the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor, their operation is not specifically designed to meet the needs of travelers within that 

Corridor. The Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg are operated by Amtrak under contract to 

the State of Illinois and are supported by financial assistance provided through appropriations 

by the Illinois Legislature. They are categorized as regional trains with daytime schedules,

begin and end their trips between their endpoints within the same calendar day, and do not 

offer sleeper or full-service diner accommodations for passengers. While the design of the 

operation of these services is similar to what is contemplated for the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor, they generally service different geographic markets.

Similarly, under the No-Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional 

transportation, such as commercial airline and bus services, are assumed to continue 

operating within the Corridor in the same manner as current operations.

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because intercity 

passenger rail service would not be reestablished in Iowa City or Des Moines, there would 

not be an attractive alternative to highway or airline travel; and congestion of these modes of 

transportation in the Corridor would not be reduced. As population increases, demand for 

regional and long-distance travel services is projected to increase, and the number of flights, 

bus trips, and personal vehicle trips would increase, causing increased congestion.

The No-Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the 

Build Alternative carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action. Additionally, NEPA requires consideration of no action to 

serve as a baseline for comparison with the proposed action and other alternatives carried 

forward.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-15 October 2012

2.2.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative consists of the improvements associated with Route Alternative 4-A to 

accommodate up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day at maximum speeds of up to 

110 mph. Current maximum train speeds vary along the Corridor due to existing operations, 

traffic volumes, and infrastructure condition. The Build Alternative, shown in Figure 2-2, is

approximately 475 miles long and consists of tracks currently owned and operated by four 

rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha. Figure 2-2 also shows the route of the California 

Zephyr; this service is anticipated to continue regardless of whether the Chicago to Council 

Bluffs-Omaha Project is constructed. These four rail carriers and the approximate distances 

of trackage2 on which the Build Alternative would operate are as follows:

• Amtrak – 1.6 miles from Chicago Union Station to 21st Street in Chicago

• BNSF – 110.5 miles from 21st Street in Chicago to a proposed connection with 

Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) near Wyanet, Illinois

• IAIS – 45.9 miles from a proposed connection with BNSF near Wyanet, Illinois,

to its connection with BNSF near Silvis, Illinois

• BNSF – 5.1 miles from its connection with IAIS near Silvis, Illinois, to its 

connection with IAIS near Rock Island, Illinois

• IAIS – 172.7 miles from its connection with BNSF near Rock Island, Illinois, to 

its connection with Union Pacific Railroad (UP) near Short Line Yard, East Des 

Moines, Iowa (this section includes the Government Bridge, a multiple-span 

movable bridge across the Mississippi River owned and maintained by the U.S. 

Army, Rock Island Arsenal, and administered by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers [USACE])

• UP – 12 miles from its connection with IAIS near Short Line Yard, East Des 

Moines, Iowa, to its connection with IAIS near West Des Moines, Iowa

• IAIS – 125 miles from its connection with UP near West Des Moines, Iowa, to its 

connection with UP at Pool Yard, Council Bluffs, Iowa

• UP – 2.5 miles from its connection with IAIS at Pool Yard, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 

to its connection with BNSF at Tower A, Omaha, Nebraska

• BNSF – 0.5 mile from its connection with UP at Tower A, Omaha, Nebraska, to 

the vicinity of the Omaha Amtrak station

 

2 The distances of trackage are only approximate because there have been changes in mileposts over the 

150 years that the railroads have been operating, and in several locations, the length depends on which 

main track the mileage is estimated along.
Des Moines River

Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I 

Missouri River

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi River

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Build Alternative

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012

2-2

0 20 40

I

Miles

Amtrak's California 

Zephyr Route

Build Alternative
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-17 October 2012

Subsequent to selection of Route Alternative 4-A, further evaluations were conducted 

regarding the infrastructure needed to support operations on the Project. The aforementioned 

list of existing track does not account for new track anticipated to be needed in a few 

locations, such as upgrading the connection of BNSF and IAIS tracks at Wyanet, and 

connections in Des Moines, and through Council Bluffs to Omaha. Additionally, the need for 

stations and maintenance facilities to support the passenger rail operations was identified.

The planned increased in train speeds involved a preliminary review of existing at-grade rail 

crossings. A process to review service options including number of round-trips per day, train 

speeds, and types and numbers of station stops was conducted. Due to predicted funding 

limitations, implementation phases for the Project were studied. In addition, current and 

projected freight and passenger operations were reviewed. The following subsections 

summarize the evaluations performed to help define the Build Alternative. 

2.2.2.1 Infrastructure

For the Build Alternative to function efficiently, improvements would be required. A 

preliminary analysis of improvements has been conducted in support of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, 

and will be refined in the Tier 1 Final EIS after additional modeling and operational analysis 

is performed, resulting in a list of specific required improvements. However, a detailed study 

of the specific design for each identified improvement would not be conducted until Tier 2 

analysis of the Project. The types of improvements needed include infrastructure upgrades, 

at-grade roadway crossings, stations, and layover and maintenance facilities.

The Build Alternative would include construction of new main track, sidings, and connection 

tracks; upgrades to existing track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired 

passenger train service reliability; installation of wayside signaling systems to enable 

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)3 as the method of operation throughout the route; and 

installation of a Positive Train Control (PTC)4 system where not already implemented. 

Throughout the Corridor, connections to the existing main track would be required for

meet/pass events, access to industries, and capacity for maintenance-of-way activities. The 

additional main track constructed may be discontinuous through urban areas and across 

bridges. Revisions of and improvements to the signaling systems would be implemented.

The preliminary analysis of improvement needs was conducted along the Corridor to 

establish a boundary of the area potentially disturbed during construction of the Project. The 

area potentially needed to construct the improvements constitutes the Potential Impact Area, 

and is further described in the introduction to Chapter 3. The basic infrastructure needs are 

subject to further refinement after continuing study and analysis, including preliminary 

modeling of capacity and demand, and will be documented in the Tier 1 Final EIS. If 

additional land outside the Potential Impact Area is needed to support new infrastructure or 

modification of existing infrastructure, the boundary of the Potential Impact Area would be 

 

3 CTC is a method of train traffic control in which a dispatcher remotely controls signals and switches. 

Trains must observe the controlled signals (Bryan, May 1, 2006). 

4 PTC is defined by FRA as “communication-based/processor-based train control technology that provides a 

system capable of reliably and functionally preventing train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, 

incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a main line switch in the 

improper position” (FRA, June 7, 2012). 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

revised and environmental impacts would be reassessed in the Final EIS. Detailed capacity 

modeling will be conducted during Tier 2 analysis to identify more specific requirements for 

revisions of and improvements to the wayside signal system, crossovers and interlocking 

plants, and connection tracks in order to provide adequate capacity for the proposed 

passenger trains.

In consideration of existing infrastructure, train traffic, roadways, urban land uses, and 

abandoned rail corridors, a few alignment options within the Corridor were identified. There 

are multiple alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across the Missouri 

River between Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple station

location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha. Consequently, the Potential 

Impact Area includes all alignments and locations currently under consideration. Figure 2-3 

illustrates potential options for connecting the Corridor through Des Moines, and Figure 2-4 

shows potential options for crossing of the Missouri River. The Tier 2 analysis will confirm 

selection of the alignment locations and station locations.

2.2.2.2 Station Stops

Station stops considered include all of the stops identified in the Final Alternatives Analysis 

Report (see Appendix A) as well as additional stops. The proposed passenger rail service

would continue to use existing Amtrak long-distance or Illinois-state-sponsored service 

stations at Chicago Union Station, La Grange Road, Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and 

Princeton, Illinois; and potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. New stations or reuse and 

modification of existing or past stations are proposed at Geneseo and Moline, Illinois; Iowa 

City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and potentially Omaha, 

Nebraska. Proposed station locations (accounting for more than one option of station 

locations for Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha) are shown in Figure 2-5. The 

proposed location in Des Moines is at or near the former Rock Island railroad station

between 4th and 5th Streets. In Council Bluffs, the proposed location is adjacent to the CBEC 

Railway, with alternate locations off the BNSF Council Bluffs Subdivision, at or near the 

former Rock Island/Milwaukee Road Council Bluffs Union Station, off Valley View Drive, 

and in the southeast quadrant of the I-80 and U.S. Highway 6 interchange. The proposed 

location in Omaha is at the former Burlington Route station, with alternate locations in north 

downtown, by the CenturyLink Center, the former Union Station, and the current Amtrak 

station. Figure 2-6 shows proposed locations for stations in Grinnell (in the southeast 

quadrant of the intersection of IAIS and UP rail lines), at or near the former Rock Island 

station, and Atlantic (at or adjacent to a former Rock Island railroad station).

Specific sites for passenger rail stations in Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and 

Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, have not yet been determined. Final site 

selection, construction, and operation of these passenger rail stations will be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents.
UV163

§ ̈¦I 235

UV163

£¤69

SE 30TH ST

MAURY ST

DEAN AVE

E 18TH ST

SCOTT AVE

SE DIAGONAL

E MARKET ST

E COURT AVE

Design Option 3

Design Option 2a

Design Option 2

Design Option 1

DATE

FIGURE

Des Moines Design Options

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Tier 1 Service Level EIS

October 2012

2-3

I

0 1,000 2,000

Feet
C o u n c i l B l u f f s C o u n c i l B l u f f s

£¤6

£¤6

Missouri River 

Crossing Location 2

Existing CN Single-Track Swing

 Span Bridge (Former Illinois 

Central - Not Operational)

Missouri River 

Crossing Location 1

Existing UP 

Double-Track Bridge

O m a h a O m a h a

§ ̈¦480

§ ̈¦I 29

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦I 80

UV192

UV165

UV192

UV0192

UV192

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦480

Design Option 2

Design Option 1

DATE

FIGURE

Missouri River Crossing Design Options

Council Bluffs, IA and Omaha, NE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Tier 1 Service Level EIS

October 2012

2-4

I

0 1,500 3,000

Feet
GGG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

£¤6

£¤75

£¤275

§ ̈¦480

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦29

G

£¤69

§ ̈¦235

Proposed Station and Maintenance Locations

Des Moines and Council Bluffs/Omaha

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

2-5

0 3,000 6,000

Feet

0 4,000 8,000

Feet

I

G Proposed

Station 

Location

G

Alternative

Station 

Location

Proposed

Maintenance

Location

Alternatives

Interstate

US HWY

State HWY
Atlantic

UV83 UV173

UV £¤6 83

G

£¤71

£¤6

n

Grinnell

UV146

G

£¤6

Grinnell

College

Proposed Station Locations

Grinnell and Atlantic

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

2-6

0 3,000 6,000

I

Feet

G Proposed 

Station 

Location

Alternatives

Interstate

US HWY

State HWY

Atlantic

Grinnell

Iowa

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29 § ̈¦380

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦80
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-23 October 2012

2.2.2.3 Maintenance Facilities

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the Des 

Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas. Specific sites for these facilities have

not yet been determined; however, Figure 2-5 shows proposed areas that could host 

maintenance facilities in the Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas. 

Interim layover and light maintenance facilities may be required at Moline or Iowa City 

depending on implementation strategies. The development of Moline and Iowa City layover 

and maintenance facilities could occur as part of implementation of other passenger rail 

projects. Tentative locations for these facilities could be near IAIS Rock Island Yard in 

Moline and in Coralville, Iowa, southwest of the I-80 and Coral Ridge Avenue interchange. 

These sites, as well as any interim-phase train layover and light maintenance facilities 

required, will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents.

In addition to light maintenance, heavy maintenance for locomotives and train sets would be 

required. The aforementioned Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluff locations for light 

maintenance could potentially be selected to also support heavy maintenance activities. The 

method by which such maintenance would be performed has not yet been determined. 

Potential methods include construction of a dedicated maintenance facility for the Project, 

contracting with existing Amtrak or Metra heavy maintenance facilities in Chicago, or 

contracting with a third-party contractor using an existing railroad heavy maintenance facility 

at some other location. The heavy maintenance facility for the Project if constructed as part 

of the Project will be evaluated through Tier 2 analysis.

2.2.2.4 At-Grade Crossings

There are approximately 850 at-grade roadway crossings on the Build Alternative. Grade 

crossing surfaces and warning systems would need to be improved to meet safety standards 

for passenger trains traveling at 110 mph. All crossings would undergo diagnostic studies 

during Tier 2 analysis for improvement needs in concert with Illinois DOT, the Illinois 

Commerce Commission, and the host railroad in Illinois; Iowa DOT and the host railroad in 

Iowa; and the Nebraska Department of Roads and the host railroad in Nebraska. The crossing 

analysis would evaluate all crossings with potential for closure under the Build Alternative. 

Warning devices would be installed based on speed-dependent criteria. Existing warning

devices would be reused where practical if they conform to the speed-dependent criteria.

2.2.2.5 Service Options

An iterative process was conducted for determining the optimum number of round-trips per 

day, train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops for the Build Alternative. The 

process considered ridership and revenue, as well as general operation and maintenance 

costs, as maximum frequency and speed increased and as station stops were added. Service 

options considered between two and seven round-trips per day between Chicago and Omaha, 

and also between Chicago and Des Moines; maximum speeds of between 79 and 110 mph;

and two types of station stop service, standard-stop or selected-stop, as defined below. 

Station stops intersected by Route Alternative 4-A were considered. Station stops are 

typically located at the largest intermediate cities, or as close as possible to the largest 

intermediate cities, in order to attract and serve the largest possible ridership. In addition, 

potential station stops in suburban areas and smaller urban areas were evaluated to determine 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

whether such stops would increase overall ridership and revenue despite longer overall 

Corridor travel times, to determine potential ridership gained from each urban area, and to 

determine the anticipated effect on Corridor-wide ridership and travel time. Standard-stop 

service would involve a train stopping at all identified station stops, and selected-stop service 

would involve a train stopping at only some identified station stops.

The iterative process was bounded by considering the feasibility and practicality of low and 

high limits of trains, trains speeds, and types and numbers of station stops. Providing more 

than seven round-trips per day would not generate substantial additional ridership, so the 

maximum service level evaluated was seven round-trips per day. The maximum speed range 

was identified based on estimated costs of implementing the service. Speeds above a 

maximum of 110 mph would require closure or costly grade separations of all existing 

at-grade crossings in order to comply with FRA high-speed rail corridor guidelines for 

grade-crossing safety. In addition, extensive reduction of curvature would be required in 

order to obtain speeds in excess of 110 mph over most of the route. Passenger train 

maximum speeds below 79 mph would not generate sufficient ridership and would not be 

competitive with travel by automobile. 

Service options were compared based on estimated travel times, ridership, revenue, and 

general operation and maintenance costs. The primary criteria used to screen the service 

options were the ridership and revenue forecasts because they are indicative of 

competitiveness with other modes of transportation. Average Chicago to Omaha travel time 

varies between speed regimes but does not vary substantially for the service options 

considered within each speed regime. As anticipated, the 110 mph design speed resulted in 

the quickest trips and the highest estimated ridership. Iowa DOT selected the optimum 

service option for full implementation, and eliminated other considered options that did not 

have adequate ridership and revenue, and did not have sufficient station stops. Although all 

service options considered were feasible, the eliminated options were not reasonable and did 

not fully meet the purpose and need for the Project to the extent of the optimum service 

option. The selection of a service option for study was based on service development 

planning and did not consider environmental impacts. As presented in Section 2.2.2.6, a 

phased implementation of the optimum service option is advisable given anticipated funding 

availability. The optimum service option would be implemented in various phases.

Operations under the Build Alternative would ultimately include a combination of standardstop and selected-stop service. Selected-stop station stops would be Chicago Union Station, 

Naperville, Princeton, and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, 

Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. Standard-stop service would include the selected-stop locations

as well as station stops at La Grange Road, Plano, Mendota, and Geneseo, Illinois, and 

Grinnell and Atlantic, Iowa. There would be up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day 

travelling between Chicago and Des Moines, with five of these round-trips continuing to 

Omaha. The passenger trains would travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, with travel time 

averaging under 7 hours from Chicago to Omaha and under 5 hours from Chicago to 

Des Moines. These travel times are competitive with the personal automobile. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-25 October 2012

2.2.2.6 Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, FRA anticipates that the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha Project would be incrementally funded and that construction and 

operations would be implemented in phases. The specific phasing of the Project is not known 

at this time but would be determined as funding is allocated to the Project.

The Project is anticipated to expand from the baseline of two round-trips per day from 

Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 79 mph (included in the Quad Cities Expansion 

Program passenger rail project) and service extended to Iowa City (included in the Chicago 

to Iowa City project). The Project would then be extended westward sequentially from Iowa 

City, to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, and then to Omaha. At a maximum speed of 79 mph, 

average travel times between Chicago and Omaha would be approximately 8 hours, and 

between Chicago and Des Moines would be approximately 6 hours.

The speed and the frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation 

phases up to a maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to 

Des Moines, with five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. The ultimate 

proposed implementation would be realized over many years of phased implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project. Section 5.6 provides additional 

background on the phased implementation process. After further study during the Tier 1 

NEPA process, more detail on the phasing may be determined and documented in the Final 

EIS. The Tier 2 NEPA process would address phased implementation in detail as successive 

projects are proposed.

2.2.2.7 Current Passenger Service

Based on initial coordination and for the purposes of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, it is assumed that 

Amtrak and the State of Illinois would continue their respective passenger services in 

conjunction with the proposed Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service. Similarly, other 

forms of long-distance and regional transportation such as airplane and bus services are 

assumed to continue operating in and between the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs

metropolitan areas in the same manner as current operations. Further interaction between the 

States of Iowa and Illinois, and coordination with Amtrak would occur for the continuation 

of the service of through ticketing and Amtrak ticket marketing and point-of-sale system that 

is common to all Amtrak long-distance and state-supported, Amtrak-operated regional trains, 

as well as many commuter trains and bus services.

2.2.3 Preferred Alternative

The Build Alternative is the Preferred Alternative for this Project.

2.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Table 2-4 summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and the Build 

Alternative based on the detailed analysis documented in Chapter 3 of this Tier 1 EIS. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Transportation Increased traffic congestion on 

highway system

Competitive transportation alternative; 

reduced freight traffic interference

Land Use, Zoning, and 

Property Acquisitions

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Impacts on land use, primarily on 

industrial and farmland

Agricultural Resources Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

3,190 acres prime farmland; 840 acres 

statewide important farmland

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Minor improvements to 

socioeconomic conditions (Chicago 

to Quad Cities only)

Economic benefits provided through 

job creation, joint development, 

improved accessibility, and increased 

economic activity (Chicago to Omaha)

Title VI and 

Environmental Justice

No disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts

Beneficial economic and mobility 

impacts; potential impacts on 

Environmental Justice population area 

in Des Moines

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Quad Cities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Omaha

Public Health and Safety

Improvements to at-grade crossings

and signals (Chicago to Quad 

Cities)

Improvements to at-grade crossings

and signals (Chicago to Omaha)

Noise and Vibration Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

1.6 noise impacts per mile;

7 vibration impacts per mile

Air Quality Increase in pollutant emissions over 

time due to fewer modal shifts

Decrease of most pollutant emissions

due to increased modal shifts

Hazardous Waste and 

Waste Disposal

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Minor impacts on 3 Superfund sites, 

34 leaking underground storage tanks, 

27 Non-National Priorities List sites, 

and 1 wastewater treatment facility site

Cultural Resources No Project impacts

60 historic resources (37 buildings, 

1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic 

districts)

Parks and Federally or 

State-Listed Natural Areas No Project impacts 44 parks, 24 recreation areas, and 22 natural areas

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties No Project impacts

44 public parks, 21 public recreation 

areas, 8 public refuges, and 60 historic 

properties

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Minor impacts on sensitive 

receptors

Impacts on visual resources (parks, 

natural areas, riparian corridors) and 

sensitive receptors in Des Moines

Waterways and Water 

Bodies Minor impacts

Streams :104,150 linear feet

Lakes: 32 acres

Ponds: 33 acres 

Wetlands Minor impacts

238 acres (1 acre aquatic bed, 84 acres 

emergent, 33 acres scrub-shrub, and 

120 acres forested)

Water Quality Minor potential impacts

24 streams on 303(d) list of impaired 

water bodies; more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative

Floodplains Minor impacts 1,657 acres

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils Minor impacts

More impacts than No-Build 

Alternative, but minor impacts on 

Loess Hills
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-27 October 2012

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Natural Habitats and 

Wildlife Minor impacts

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat;

aquatic habitat impacts; increase in 

noise and vibration, train collisions, 

and water pollution

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Suitable habitat for federally and 

state-listed species

Suitable habitat for federally and statelisted species with potential for impact 

from constructing a new Missouri 

River crossing

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Increase in energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions due to 

fewer modal shifts

Long-term decrease in energy

consumption and greenhouse gas

emissions due to increased modal shifts

Construction Impacts Minor, temporary impacts Substantially more impacts than 

No-Build, but temporary in nature

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources

Minor commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption 

by automobiles

Substantial commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption

Short-Term Use versus 

Long-Term Productivity

Short-term construction impacts of 

other projects, including benefit of 

construction employment; minimal 

reduction in long-term productivity 

of natural resources; and 

improvement in transportation 

network

Short-term construction impacts

(including benefit of construction 

employment) and reduction in air 

pollutant emissions and long-term

productivity of natural resources 

beyond that of the No-Build; improved 

long-term socioeconomic productivity 

through transportation network

enhancement

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Increase in vehicular traffic

congestion and decrease in air 

quality and energy

Reduced traffic congestion and vehicle 

emissions; reduced ridership of other 

transportation modes; improved air 

quality and safety; indirect impacts on 

parks, natural areas, and wildlife;

increased chance of hazardous material

incidents and water pollution; transitoriented development near stations

Note: All potential impacts shown are preliminary and have been evaluated at a Tier 1 level of analysis. 

Impacts will be reviewed and revised as necessary within future Tier 2 NEPA documents.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank